Author Topic: Browning Automatic Rifle (Read 2614 times)

davidpt40 · « **on:** September 14, 2003, 04:56:59 AM »

Heres something I've pondered. Why werent individual U.S. troops armed with BARs rather than the M1? The model 1918a1 BAR could fire semi and fully automatic. It used the same round as the M1 and could also use a bipod.

It seems to me the BAR is just an earlier version of the M14.

edit: inadvertantly typed tripod instead of bipod

Engine · « **Reply #1 on:** September 14, 2003, 05:05:49 AM »

It was also extremely heavy.

Fishu · « **Reply #2 on:** September 14, 2003, 05:16:43 AM »

Well.. why weren't the troops armed with SAW/M60 rather than M16s, after all those had alot of ammo, automatic fire...

Might work out in CS and americas army... but not in real life

davidpt40 · « **Reply #3 on:** September 14, 2003, 05:20:05 AM »

Thanks for the reply. Yeah, fully equipped, a BAR weighs 40 pounds.

I've never been in the infantry, but would 40 pounds really be that much weight to carry around?

Army units had 1 BAR gunner per squad. Marine units were organized a bit different. Each squad of 12 men had 3 BAR gunners.

Fishu · « **Reply #4 on:** September 14, 2003, 05:35:38 AM »

When you consider that a rifle weights about 20 pounds and is much more flexible/faster to use in combat than a BAR, which would you choose?
With BAR's you'd be in deep poop at close combat. (makes America's Army use of SAW seem silly, when they do merry go round while shooting with it

)

thrila · « **Reply #5 on:** September 14, 2003, 05:41:57 AM »

What was the cost of a BAR? i would have thought it was more expensive than the garand. Maybe that was a factor too.

davidpt40 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 14, 2003, 06:08:41 AM »

Clyde of 'Bonnie and Clyde' fame used a BAR. And it was only with full ammo and bipod that it weighed 40 pounds.

I'm not understanding your comparison of the BAR to the SAW/M60 Fishu. To me, the BAR seems alot like a heavy M14. For close combat, I think an automatic rifle would be more effective than a semi-auto weapon (M1).

Golfer · « **Reply #7 on:** September 14, 2003, 06:19:55 AM »

M1 garand...11 pounds and change.
BAR...18.5 pounds.

Outfitted with all the ammunition...BAR Belt of 12 mags (240 rounds) you've got some weight. Add it to all the other gear you needed to carry...you get the picture.

Even smaller M1A1 Thompson's were very expensive to manufacture, and hence replaced with the M3 Greasegun.

Anyway...i just realized i was going to give a thorough analysis on costs, practicality, and a list of sources and a healthy dose of common sense. I changed my mind. I'll just say this...

I've fired both, and used each in a course to simulate some sort of combat conditions (i was not being shot at, and my enemy was an assortment of paper plates, targets, and milk jugs) while running, diving, and firing from all firing positions. The M1 was much easier to use, was very easy to load and fire on the go, and very accurate. The BAR (Modified M1918A2 for semi-auto) was fun, i sprayed a lot of rounds in burst and semi automatic. When it was all said and done, i fired 72 rounds from the garand and 150 from the BAR and scored more hits percentage-wise with the garand (65, a "hit" on a paper target being in a scoring ring which is a 10" radius) and something along the lines of 75 with the BAR. Conclusion...If i'm going to be running around carrying my house, the week's food supply, and all my earthly possessions while having a bunch of guys shooting at me...i'm taking the M1.

Also had to chance to fire an M1 Carbine, AR-15, Thompson, and 1903 Springfield in similar (not pseudo-reenacting) circumstances though strictly target, and my favorite out of all of them for a combat weapon would still be the M1 garand or Thompson. Both very intimidating weapons and the Thompson behaved okay at a range of 50 yards (as it was designed for that and closer ranges) while the M1 a bowling pin or enemy milk jug stands no chance within 300 yards with iron sights.

davidpt40 · « **Reply #8 on:** September 14, 2003, 06:52:01 AM »

Excellent post Golfer!

Quote

When it was all said and done, i fired 72 rounds from the garand and 150 from the BAR and scored more hits percentage-wise with the garand (65, a "hit" on a paper target being in a scoring ring which is a 10" radius) and something along the lines of 75 with the BAR.

Think it was Halsey who said "Never send a Marine where you can send a bullet". Didn't realize the BAR was that light- 18.5 pounds.

I bet U.S. doctrine had alot to do with troops being issued semi-auto rifles. German squads at the end of the war that were issued with STG44s did very well against the Russians.

But from what I understand about squad level combat, full auto fire is mainly for suppression fire. During Vietnam, some unit was ordered to only fire their M16s semi-automatic. Kill rate went up, ammo usage and friendly fire incidents went down.

Fishu · « **Reply #9 on:** September 14, 2003, 07:29:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by davidpt40
I'm not understanding your comparison of the BAR to the SAW/M60 Fishu. To me, the BAR seems alot like a heavy M14. For close combat, I think an automatic rifle would be more effective than a semi-auto weapon (M1).

Well, BAR is basically M60/M249 of the WWII for US squads.
a squad support weapon.

BAR uses .30-06 round, which will give quite a kick, therefore you really don't want to use automatic fire without support.
....and the support usually is something solid you can lay the weapon on.
Your body isn't too good of a support for the .30-06 automatic fire, if you want to hit something.
The closer you get, the worse BAR gets... in close quorters it'd be way too heavy to be used effectively alone.

It's a cumbersome weapon compared to M1 and that means you'll be slower in your moves.
Not a good thing if a single shot can make the difference between life and death.

So... the BAR is best used when supported, while M1 rifle could be used effectively without support.
The alternative to M1 rifle is the Thompson SMG, albeit wildly inaccurate at any further distance than close, but much better than either of the two others up close and alot less recoil, which makes it possible to use automatic fire effectively.

When you're moving, you want to have lighter and smaller weapon, which makes it possible to react quicker on threats.

lazs2 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 14, 2003, 08:22:08 AM »

The Garrand is the most accurate and rugged full power semi auto battle rifle ever made. The reason for its accuracy is the gas piston or, where the gas piston takes its gas from... the port in the barrel is allmost at the muzzle.. this allows the bullet to be gone before the barrel whips. This is a long stroke system that is allso very gentle to shoot with the powerful ought six round.
lazs

Monk · « **Reply #11 on:** September 14, 2003, 08:27:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by davidpt40
I've never been in the infantry, but would 40 pounds really be that much weight to carry around?

1 pound is to much to carry.

Scootter · « **Reply #12 on:** September 14, 2003, 08:45:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Monk
1 pound is to much to carry.

hehe true...so true..

Ghosth · « **Reply #13 on:** September 14, 2003, 08:49:03 AM »

The story's I've heard about the BAR (And they are just that, storys) always pointed out that it took 1 guy to just hold the darn thing down on full auto. Another to aim & pull the trigger & try to absorb the recoil.

On the other side of the coin, I've seen a buddy of mine shoot a Ruffed Grouse out of the air at night with an M1 Garand.

1 shot, wait 2 seconds, poof, 1 grouse hits the ground. Walked a hundred yards & he did it again. Its so dark I can't see to walk much less see a ruffed grouse takeing off in front of me.

Went to clean the birds, both were perfect head shots, no meat damaged.

(The kid could shoot

)

_Schadenfreude_ · « **Reply #14 on:** September 14, 2003, 09:23:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by davidpt40
Thanks for the reply. Yeah, fully equipped, a BAR weighs 40 pounds.

I've never been in the infantry, but would 40 pounds really be that much weight to carry around?

Army units had 1 BAR gunner per squad. Marine units were organized a bit different. Each squad of 12 men had 3 BAR gunners.

BAR was also a very poor LMG, too heavy, mag too small, no barrel change....40 lbs plus the ammo to feed it is just way too much...Bren and MG34/42 were far superior as can be seen by the fact that they are still in use 60 years on.